In the vain hope of keeping it real and keeping the anti-libertarian rantage to a minimum. Plus, I’m bored…I’m waiting for a flight and I’ve got nothing better to do right now, and since Der quoted something from me, and you decided to retort as well it seemed the thing to do.
Why are you posting to it? Serious question…what do you hope to get out of this besides simple confirmation that libertarians who want zero government involvement in the school system are wrong?
While there are still a sizable number of people who hold libertarian views, then showing those views to be childish and self-destructive is useful.
Yes, you are
That’s ridiculous.
Educating another generation of upper-caste parasites at the expense of the common man is actually of no value to me. Negative value, even.
Did you miss the bit about how it would motivate people in power to actually give a damn about the quality of education for everyone? The goal isn’t to have shitty equal education, the goal is to have great equal education.
We need social equality more.
Deliberately lobotomising little Joey with shitty education, so little Jimmy can grow up to be a precious little overeducated flower, is what’s monstrous, and that’s what happens currently.
I want my best teachers working with every kind of student.
Whoever sold you that mind-reading helmet owes you a refund. This has jack-all to do with libertarianism, because not all homeschool advocates are Libertarians.
Start an anti-libertarian thread elsewhere, please.
I don’t have particular interest in starting such a thread. Especially while one is on the front page.
If education is entirely for profit, where is the profit in keeping the best teachers, or those who have the most experience? No, they cost too much. The greatest profit is in churning them like fast food workers for as little money as possible.
The greatest profit is also in ridding your school of children who require the most resources and thus, don’t make you money. Special Ed? You’d better be very wealthy, or it won’t exist. Problem child? Out the door - find another school.
Ah, so your thread is aimed at some theoretical home school group (that doesn’t reside on this message board), and you figured this would be a rousing debate with one side attacking the strawman and the other side…well, not involved in the debate at all because, you know, there isn’t actually anyone TOO debate this on this board. Sounds like a rousing good time!
Are there a sizable number of 'dopers who hold this view, or is this just a public service opportunity to have a one sided debate against one extreme or the other with no middle position?
[QUOTE=Chimera]
If education is entirely for profit, where is the profit in keeping the best teachers, or those who have the most experience? No, they cost too much. The greatest profit is in churning them like fast food workers for as little money as possible.
[/QUOTE]
How do companies keep good engineers or scientists or economic experts? I mean, they cost too much, right? So, if profit is the key, why aren’t the ranks of Lockheed filled by fast food workers paid minimum wage?
Yeah, 'cause people aren’t going to spend any money on improving their kids! Only the rich care about the little bastards, after all. 
Libertarianism is such obvious destructive nonsense that it’s never going to have much respect outside its true believers.
Mostly government regulation and laws against property damage & murder, keeping them from producing products that crash and explode. So they have to hire actual experts.
No; but a private school is probably going to concentrate on conning parents out as much money as possible rather than actually producing the education it promises.
Because libertarians respond to every example of free markets failing with cries of “those weren’t really free markets.”
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Libertarianism is such obvious destructive nonsense that it’s never going to have much respect outside its true believers.
[/QUOTE]
So, earlier when you said this:
…you didn’t mean it, right? Which is your final answer?
What about all the products that don’t involve ‘property damage & murder, keeping them from producing products that crash and explode’…all of them involve the lowest paid, fast food minimum wage workers? :dubious: And teachers would would work for private corporations would be included in the fast food minimum wage category, why, exactly?
And parents would fall for that the same way they do for everything else, presumably…which brings us back to why corporations don’t use minimum wage fast food workers to design and build all the stuff people do use.
Never mind answering, you are just going to continue down this ridiculous road and I can already anticipate what you are going to say so don’t bother. The actual answer is that the OP’s request for a school system that has zero government involvement is pointless since it doesn’t exist…and very few people would want it too. The reality, contrary to your own screed is that if we DID privatize the school system it would be much like the school system we have today, except that instead of local government running it there would be contractors running it with government oversight and standards. It would basically look just like our current school system because the political reality is you’d never be able to make the radical changes needed to completely disconnect it from the government…and, again, very few people would even want that. Much like our healthcare system, the only realistic changes that could be made would be small, incremental shifts, and even that would take a large shift in the political makeup of the country, especially at the local level. So…not going to happen, even modest shifts either towards more privatization or towards whatever it is liberals think they want if they could only have a free hand, at least not at the national level. You MIGHT get some local experiments that shift the bar a bit more, but that’s going to be about it.
Do you have a quote from 'dopers saying this, or did you just make that up? Is this ALL ‘libertarians’, most, some or just your impression? If I make broad brush categorical assertions about liberals whining about something, will you be good with that as well?
Because those people produce more than they’re paid. As there is not a direct quantifiable “you brought in N dollars by teaching math well today”, it is much easier to say that paying some kid $15k to teach basic math is more cost effective than paying someone with an advanced degree $50k.
Costs for direct instruction are necessarily higher. If you worked at McDonalds and had a special needs kid, how much exactly are you capable of paying for their schooling? :dubious:
Thing is, I’ve met hundreds of parents at public schools, and I’ve met tons of teachers. Some parents would be better than almost all teachers; they’re fantastic. Other parents should have their childrearing licenses revoked with extreme prejudice. Except we don’t issue 'em. My primary problem with these proposals is that their kids, already having a rough road ahead of them, would have one of the few sources of support in their lives removed.
Really? Issuing a per-child cost for educating kids wouldn’t create a conflict of interest in a for-profit institution that doesn’t exist in a nonprofit institution?
Hint: profit=income-expenditures, and income per child is fixed.If you have a ton of oversight, too, at some point you create an institution indistinguishable from public schools, I think.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
Because those people produce more than they’re paid. As there is not a direct quantifiable “you brought in N dollars by teaching math well today”, it is much easier to say that paying some kid $15k to teach basic math is more cost effective than paying someone with an advanced degree $50k.
[/QUOTE]
Worth is always a value judgement…a market judgement in my terms. A teacher would be worth what the market judges their worth to be. To ME, if we are talking a privatized situation, I’d value good schools more than poor schools, and would want my kids to go to a good school, with a reputable reputation and good reviews from parents. I’m guessing many parents would want that, and would be willing to pay more for it…which would drive the needs of the school to get teachers to meet that need. Other schools would have less rigorous market forces if parents didn’t care as much. Since, realistically, ALL schools would have to meet minimum requirements, however, they would all have to meet minimum standards, which is going to set a basement level for salaries…which are going to be more than you can get at your local fast food place, at least if we are talking burger flipper types. You are going to need, at a guess, a minimum of a degree or certification at least in order to meet those standards, which, unless everyone can get that from a crackerjack box or just flipping burgers, that some level of specialization is going to be in order…which is going to set that baseline salary.
Why do you think teachers can’t produce more than they are worth, out of curiosity?
You don’t think that people want their special needs students taken care of, given good care and schooling consummate with their needs and abilities? If YOU have such a child, are you telling me you wouldn’t want them taken care of? If YOU are an institution and there is a need, would you not want to fill it and make money?? 
But ok, let’s say no one wants to pay any money to take care of their special needs kids, and businesses don’t want to make money on a niche group because, well, who likes money? In that case, the government could contract those schools out specially, to be run with special grants. Seriously…you can get companies to do anything if you pay them, so even if you are right and no one wants to pay for their special needs kid to go to a special needs school (and leaving aside that you’d need to have the government give vouchers or other means for poor people to have their kids, special needs or not, go to these theoretical private schools) you’d just do what we do today.
I really don’t see why this is so hard. A privatized system would look very similar to what we have today…just like the health care reforms aren’t radically different than our current health care system. The government would still be involved, there would still be standards and regulations, and the only difference would be who was running the things and who had oversight. Seems easy enough to me, though obviously the devil would be in the details. But broadly? What’s so difficult to understand about this?
Would it be better than what we have today? No idea…my WAG is it would be pretty much exactly what we have today, with a few tweaks, since that’s what the majority of voters are comfortable with.
Why do you think that reduction of cost necessarily implies a conflict of interest? Did you not read my cite where private schools in India deliver better education than government schools at a fraction of the cost? If quality always suffered in for profit products/services, you would find that quality of products everywhere was shoddy. This is patently not the case. I think that in for profit schools you would find far more innovation than under public school systems that by their nature are not incentivised to innovate(nor, in India, teach). Sensible regulation(like testing, and establishing standards) will help.
Neither is a ‘ton’ of oversight required, I’m just saying that if oversight makes you more comfortable, it is not ruled out under a private system. Oversight from outside the system also has the happy position of being able to ask for results, rather than have to figure out how to deliver them. Governments are better at one of those things than the other.
First, India is so different from us that I’m not convinced we can use India reliably as a case study. Why do you look to their terrible educational system instead of the far superior systems of Taiwan, Japan, or Finland?
Second, there are three differences between your educational proposal and most products:
a) The primary consumer isn’t the purchaser.
b) We’ll require all children to consume the product.
c) The price of the product will be fixed.
These three issues mean that different dynamics will play out.
What sort of results will you expect? Will you say that passing EOGs is sufficient? How will you measure K-2, then–or will you start EOGs in kindergarten? If the only oversight is results-based, cheating will become even more of an issue than it already is, given the incentives.
I think there are a lot more pitfalls here than you’re aware of. Have you discussed your proposal with anyone who’s worked in education and who has expertise in the subject?
Perverse incentives are part of all human activity, public and private. Note how many examples in that article are government actions.
Competition is not a magic cure-all; nothing is. It does force firms to supply what their customers actually want, however.
Why, that sounds just like school districts where funds are channeled to more and more administrators, instead of to the schools themselves, with the difference being that if your private school isn’t providing a real education, you can take your business elsewhere.
Hey, another perverse incentive involving the government. Noted. But this seems unrelated to schools, a judge who wants to funnel children into detention can do so without needing a private or a public school as a feeder system.